April
30, 2002

Financing
Venezuelan Mischief

I
thought it was a little curious when our newspaper, on the day of
the coup that ousted Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for 48 hours
or so, received an exultant fax from one George A. Folsom of the
International Republican Institute. "The Venezuelan people
rose up to defend democracy in their country," crowed Mr. Folsom.
A couple of days later we also got a crow-eating fax  although
it was far from identifying itself as such  from the same
Mr. Folsom, expressing his pleasure and satisfaction that "civil
society" in Venezuela had been successful in putting down that
nasty old attempted coup.

Now
the Register is among the top 30 newspapers in the country in terms
of circulation, but it's not one especially noted (though I think
it should be) for its coverage of foreign affairs on the editorial
page, where I write, and to which fax machine the Folsom missive
came. So I figured that if we got that fax, it was probably blanket-sent
to lots and lots of newspapers. Mr. Folsom, who had not in the past
shared his views with us via fax, obviously wanted lots of newspapers
to know he was pleased  and, presumably, even more pleased
later on when the opposite of what he originally celebrated happened.

TAX-SUBSIDIZED
"DEMOCRACY"

I
was aware of what the International Republican Institute was. It is
the Republican Party branch of the National Endowment for Democracy,
an agency created and funded by Congress (to the tune of about $33
million per year) to support democracy worldwide through the two major
U.S. branches of the Government Party. There is also a National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs. The two institutes are supposed
to be completely independent of the US government, but to perform
their missionary work on behalf of functionaries of the Republicans
and Democrats.

But,
of course, they get all their funding from forced exactions from
American taxpayers. It is supposed to be a mark of virtue that he
who pays the piper is not supposed to be able to call the tune in
this case. The Endowment claims to be completely independent of
the federal government, completely independent of foreign-policy
debates, and utterly pure in its pursuit of some abstract concept
called "democracy." Why this is supposed to be a virtue
is beyond me. If it's true, it means that the Endowment is completely
free of any accountability to those who are paying the bills. In
fact, it's almost impossible for organizations run by the major
parties not to take what they view as US foreign policy interests
into account when they spread the taxpayers' largess around the
world.

MORE
THAN PASSING INTEREST

I
figured that Mr. Folsom was simply handy with a press release and
eager to bask in the glory of (if glory was appropriate) the ouster
of Hugo Chavez who, after all, has been cozy with Castro and something
of a pain to US foreign policy elites. As a story in Friday's New
York Times makes clear, however, Mr. Folsom's interest was much
more direct.

It
turns out that the International Republican Institute has an office
in Venezuela and had received $339,998 for "political party building"
activities there. The National Democratic Institute was given $210,500
of Endowment money to promote local government accountability. The
Endowment also gave $154,377 directly to the international arm of
the AFL-CIO for organizing in Venezuela.

The
Confederation of Venezuelan Workers led the work stoppage that precipitated
the coup. The Confederation's leader, Carlos Ortega, worked closely
with businessman Pedro Carmona, who proclaimed himself president
after the coup (and was later arrested and might yet face some kind
of charges).

All
told, the National Endowment spent about $877,000 in Venezuela over
the last year  about four times what it had spent prior to
Chavez's assumption of the presidency.

ORGANIZING
FOR COUPS?

So
did a US government-funded organization supposedly devoted to democracy
finance a coup attempt? The Times story comes very close to saying
so in so many words. At the very least, the Endowment funded several
of the organizations, including the labor confederation, that ended
up participating in the coup. When Times reporter Christopher Marquis
talked to George Folsom, Folsom insisted that his organization focused
on finding only constitutional means to remove Chavez. But he doesn't
deny that the IRI was interested in opposition to Chavez.

CREATING
SUSPICION

All
of this news is bound to fuel the widespread perception  intensified
by the fact that the Bush administration's first response was to
celebrate the coup  that the United States had fairly heavy
involvement in the attempted coup. Lorne Craner, now Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, is a former president
of the International Republican Institute. When I talked to former
UC professor (and former CIA consultant) Chalmers Johnson a couple
of weeks ago, he said he didn't have any direct knowledge, but he
would be surprised if the CIA hadn't been at least somewhat involved
in planning the coup against Chavez. Certainly there was a parade
of opposition figures trooping in and out of the US embassy in the
weeks before the coup attempt. Johnson suggested that it would be
almost impossible to find anybody, regardless of political persuasion,
south of the border who didn't believe that the United States backed
and helped to plan the coup, whether it instigated it or not.

DISENDOWING
THE ENDOWMENT

Advocates
of the National Endowment for Democracy, formed during the Reagan
administration, say it has kept itself independent of US foreign
policy and has therefore been able to be helpful in places like
Poland and South Africa, in instances where official US government
help might have been unwelcome or unhelpful. Even apart from the
question of whether an agency designed to meddle overseas (however
helpfully) and funded by the government can or should be independent
of the government, few people overseas believe that it is truly
independent.

Thus
most Venezuelans believe the Endowment's support of certain groups
that later participated in the coup attempt represented official
US policy.

For
that reason and for many others it would be a good idea to abolish
the National Endowment for Democracy. If the Republican Party, the
Democratic Party, the Reform Party or Libertarian Party  or
any non-party political group  wants to raise money privately
to assist "friendlies" in other countries, they should
be free to do so. In fact, millions of dollars are raised each year
for good works overseas, both political and humanitarian. But forcing
US taxpayers to provide operatives of the two major parties a slush
fund to push their causes in other countries is a mistake.

I
doubt if the Endowment's activities can or should be genuinely independent
of the government. If they are not independent, they amount to imperialist
meddling, however well-intentioned, in other countries. If they
are independent, they amount to taxpayer subsidies for unaccountable
meddling by the two major parties, who are quite capable of raising
money through contributions rather than through taxes.

Whether
it's true or not, the Endowment is perceived as an operation in
support of the American empire. The little good it might do is outweighed
by the negative effects of that impression and by the reality that
underlies it.